MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083936980 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e31818dbfe3

A Comprehensive Review of Patient-Reported Satisfaction with Botulinum Toxin Type A for Aesthetic Procedures

2008· review· en· W2083936980 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient satisfactionMedicineModalitiesInclusion and exclusion criteriaBotulinum toxinLikert scaleInclusion (mineral)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapyPsychologyAlternative medicineSurgerySocial psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The success of any medical procedure can be measured in many ways. Patient-reported outcomes, specifically those related to the patient's personal satisfaction, are among the most important measures of success in aesthetic treatments. This analysis assessed satisfaction with botulinum toxin type A treatment in aesthetic indications and identified approaches to help optimize clinical outcomes. METHODS: For this comprehensive, evidence-based review, electronic databases were searched for clinical trials, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled trials examining patient satisfaction following botulinum toxin type A aesthetic treatments. Reference lists and meeting/conference abstracts were also inspected to ensure capture of relevant literature. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established a priori. Twenty-three articles met all inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. RESULTS: Studies were highly heterogeneous in the methods used to assess satisfaction. Most utilized Likert-type scales and included other patient-reported outcomes as well as satisfaction. The majority were done in the glabellar area. Nevertheless, patient satisfaction with botulinum toxin type A treatment was consistently and significantly high, typically ranging from more than 65 percent to more than 90 percent, depending on facial area treated, dose, assessment, and other treatment specifics. Treatment also significantly improved patient self-perceptions and reduced perceived age relative to current age by approximately 5 years. Preliminary data suggest that patient satisfaction may improve when botulinum toxin type A is combined with other treatment modalities and when multiple areas of the face, rather than a single area, are treated. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of facial area studied or the specific assessment scale, patient satisfaction with botulinum toxin type A treatment is consistently high, and patient-reported outcomes indicate significant improvement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it